From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: [9fans] on TCP vs IL
From: Eric Grosse <ehg@research.bell-labs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <20011121025750.90E70199E4@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 21:57:48 -0500
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 268480a2-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

yet another perspective from Bell Labs experience:

For the reasons Presotto mentioned regarding loss of back-to-back packets,
when at home and connecting to our IL-only fileserver, I use TCP to import
/ from a cpu server, thus using IL just across the machine room.  The local
TCP performance is good enough that I won't care if IL goes away someday.
On the other hand, there's no immediate push to get rid of it;  we support
IL in our new NAT code.

We have an initial implementation of IPv6 in Plan 9, thanks mainly to the
efforts of Lakshman Yagati.  It doesn't do IPsec yet---we prefer the easier
network administration of SSL/TLS, thank you---but does come with v4/v6
NAPT-PT, hence is viable to adopt even in otherwise IPv4-only networks.

These decisions are all based on the personal taste of the technical
people doing the work.  "smoky back rooms" are not our style.

Eric